The name of the film was “The Corporation” by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan released in 2003
2.What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of the film is that corporations are treated by the law as human, yet they do not abide by or care about the same rules; only about money. The film observes the corporation from its very existence to the current day and shows in which way corporations have become “psychopaths” instead of trusted businessmen. It shows how they have currently become some of the most influential voices in media, politics and government regulation which is becoming a huge problem when trying to transition into sustainable industry and more “green technologies”.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The major sustainability problem in the film is the power corporations have over politics, regulations and the media. They have gained so much power that laws are passed to favor them and allow them to do anything they want with no consequences, and because they fund major media agencies stories speaking out against them are rare. This was evident in the Fox News case that the film exposed, how Fox forced the reporters to lie on air and change the original story to put the corporation in a better light. When challenged, Fox News said that covering up the truth and reporting false information was acceptable and within their rights as a media outlet. This fact in itself is appalling and a huge sustainability problem. If we can’t trust that the news we are hearing is real how are we supposed to fix problems and improve our practices?
Another sustainability issue is that corporations have so much control over politics. These large companies have lobbyists and political heavy hitters in their pocket so they can easily influence the decisions regarding regulations and laws that will affect companies. For example, Monsanto Corporation is able to pump bovine antibiotics into cattle, increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics for humans and although the facts are known, NO regulation has stopped them from doing this. It’s not only Monsanto either many large corporations are harming human health through their pollution, working conditions, and the chemicals they are adding to our food and environment.
Lastly, corporations are structured to put the stockholders wallets above anything else, including the health and well being of the general public. This extrinsic motivation, only seeing dollar signs, puts the public and the environment at the mercy of these corporations.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
There are a couple parts of the film that I found particularly shocking, the psych evaluation, the difference of pay and price and the fox news case. The psych evaluation rated the corporations based on qualities that a “normal human” would be evaluated on. What they found was that the corporations would be deemed a psychopath and unfit to function in society. This evaluation give a taste of the types of things corporations are doing and whether or not they are morally or ethically sound.
The pay vs. price example was horrifying; the fact that third world countries get paid SO MUCH less than they deserve. Items that are costing the companies less than a dollar to produce are sold in the US for almost 230 times as much in the United States. For example, a jacket that sells for 170 US dollars costs an El Salvadorian factory $0.74 to produce, and the workers are getting an even smaller cut of that money to provide for their families. Another example is that they give a worker at NIKE 6.6 minutes to make a shirt are paid near nothing for it, but their logic is that they are keeping the people fed, so it’s okay.
In addition, the Fox News story as stated above was particularly alarming because it makes you wonder if the news you watch every night at 5:00 has been tampered with as well, if you are getting the true facts or the watered down information.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I thought that overall the film was very convincing; it gave a lot of examples of where corporations have gone wrong and the overwhelming sense that we cannot stop them. If I had to choose something that was less convincing to me it was the segment about the multinational inquirer, which shows the corporations that have been taken to court and fined for their actions. It is easier nowadays to find this information and did not add much for me.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what
connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film definitely makes me think more about the corporations that I come into contact with and wonder if they are operating in the same fashion as the ones we saw or if they are more conscious about what they are doing to the environment. It also compels me to look into where the news comes from and whether the facts are correct. This is not the only class/film that I have heard that our media is tainted and only shows what politicians and corporations want us to see. It almost makes you feel a little bit helpless, where can we get accurate information? Who can we actually trust?
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is
likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that the film is targeted at American consumers, to take a look at the corporations that they are so willing to buy from and see the footprint they are having on the US and the world. Although the film does brig many issues to light, I don’t know that it will have much effect on what the viewers do on a day to day basis. It is much harder to change consumer behaviors, and the only way to change what is going on is the hit corporations where it hurts the most, their wallets, and stop buying what they are selling.
8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I don’t think that the film expressed enough the type of intervention that is necessary; changing consumer behavior and to stop buying from corporations that are hurting us. It did show corporations for what they really are and plead the case that they need to be held accountable for their actions and stop taking advantage of consumers and politicians.
The film could have proposed action points in terms of talking to legislation and protesting laws that favor corporations, but I think overall the film did a good job of bringing the problems to light and letting the viewer come up with ways to help in their own way.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film could have given examples of corporations that got it right, there are companies out there that make an effort to do right by consumers and the environment and the film did not address these corporations. Also, the film could have done a little more to show the consumer that there is light at the end of the tunnel, the film was compelling but also very dark in that it only showed negatives and problems and not many solutions.
The name of the film was “The Corporation” by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan released in 2003
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument of the film is that corporations are treated by the law as human, yet they do not abide by or care about the same rules; only about money. The film observes the corporation from its very existence to the current day and shows in which way corporations have become “psychopaths” instead of trusted businessmen. It shows how they have currently become some of the most influential voices in media, politics and government regulation which is becoming a huge problem when trying to transition into sustainable industry and more “green technologies”.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The major sustainability problem in the film is the power corporations have over politics, regulations and the media. They have gained so much power that laws are passed to favor them and allow them to do anything they want with no consequences, and because they fund major media agencies stories speaking out against them are rare. This was evident in the Fox News case that the film exposed, how Fox forced the reporters to lie on air and change the original story to put the corporation in a better light. When challenged, Fox News said that covering up the truth and reporting false information was acceptable and within their rights as a media outlet. This fact in itself is appalling and a huge sustainability problem. If we can’t trust that the news we are hearing is real how are we supposed to fix problems and improve our practices?
Another sustainability issue is that corporations have so much control over politics. These large companies have lobbyists and political heavy hitters in their pocket so they can easily influence the decisions regarding regulations and laws that will affect companies. For example, Monsanto Corporation is able to pump bovine antibiotics into cattle, increasing bacterial resistance to antibiotics for humans and although the facts are known, NO regulation has stopped them from doing this. It’s not only Monsanto either many large corporations are harming human health through their pollution, working conditions, and the chemicals they are adding to our food and environment.
Lastly, corporations are structured to put the stockholders wallets above anything else, including the health and well being of the general public. This extrinsic motivation, only seeing dollar signs, puts the public and the environment at the mercy of these corporations.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
There are a couple parts of the film that I found particularly shocking, the psych evaluation, the difference of pay and price and the fox news case. The psych evaluation rated the corporations based on qualities that a “normal human” would be evaluated on. What they found was that the corporations would be deemed a psychopath and unfit to function in society. This evaluation give a taste of the types of things corporations are doing and whether or not they are morally or ethically sound.
The pay vs. price example was horrifying; the fact that third world countries get paid SO MUCH less than they deserve. Items that are costing the companies less than a dollar to produce are sold in the US for almost 230 times as much in the United States. For example, a jacket that sells for 170 US dollars costs an El Salvadorian factory $0.74 to produce, and the workers are getting an even smaller cut of that money to provide for their families. Another example is that they give a worker at NIKE 6.6 minutes to make a shirt are paid near nothing for it, but their logic is that they are keeping the people fed, so it’s okay.
In addition, the Fox News story as stated above was particularly alarming because it makes you wonder if the news you watch every night at 5:00 has been tampered with as well, if you are getting the true facts or the watered down information.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I thought that overall the film was very convincing; it gave a lot of examples of where corporations have gone wrong and the overwhelming sense that we cannot stop them. If I had to choose something that was less convincing to me it was the segment about the multinational inquirer, which shows the corporations that have been taken to court and fined for their actions. It is easier nowadays to find this information and did not add much for me.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what
connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
The film definitely makes me think more about the corporations that I come into contact with and wonder if they are operating in the same fashion as the ones we saw or if they are more conscious about what they are doing to the environment. It also compels me to look into where the news comes from and whether the facts are correct. This is not the only class/film that I have heard that our media is tainted and only shows what politicians and corporations want us to see. It almost makes you feel a little bit helpless, where can we get accurate information? Who can we actually trust?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is
likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that the film is targeted at American consumers, to take a look at the corporations that they are so willing to buy from and see the footprint they are having on the US and the world. Although the film does brig many issues to light, I don’t know that it will have much effect on what the viewers do on a day to day basis. It is much harder to change consumer behaviors, and the only way to change what is going on is the hit corporations where it hurts the most, their wallets, and stop buying what they are selling.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I don’t think that the film expressed enough the type of intervention that is necessary; changing consumer behavior and to stop buying from corporations that are hurting us. It did show corporations for what they really are and plead the case that they need to be held accountable for their actions and stop taking advantage of consumers and politicians.
The film could have proposed action points in terms of talking to legislation and protesting laws that favor corporations, but I think overall the film did a good job of bringing the problems to light and letting the viewer come up with ways to help in their own way.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film could have given examples of corporations that got it right, there are companies out there that make an effort to do right by consumers and the environment and the film did not address these corporations. Also, the film could have done a little more to show the consumer that there is light at the end of the tunnel, the film was compelling but also very dark in that it only showed negatives and problems and not many solutions.